|WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 11 dates. [show]|
Help, I'm new and don't know how to edit the box. Advice??
Please could I have some help?
Read some help pages then. Its fun. /Ulvbot
Caveman analogy is scientifically wrong
>Since 6 kiloparsecs is ca. 20,000 light-years the >cosmic event itself happened no earlier than 18,000 BC.
This sentence makes no sense. Since the speed limit is c, and no information can be transmitted faster than c, our time is not the same as the SN1604 time, so a comparison like that is both misleading and incorrect. The sentence would need to be amended to be correct such as:
Since 6 kiloparsecs is ca. 20,000 light-years the cosmic event itself happened no earlier than 18,000 BC, provided supra-luminar travel is possible. If superluminar travel is impossible, which is the firm scientific opinion today, than it is both impossible and meaningless to state when the explosion took place, since a common frame for us and the SN1604 does not exist and cannot be established.
- If you know something the author didn't, you're allowed and even encouraged to correct the article. However, the sentence you propose would definitely not improve the article. I've removed the statement that offends you as it is indeed a bit silly and unscientific. I've also messed up the lay-out a bit, I hope someone can improve this. Piet 16:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The last I heard, we measure our experience of time here on Earth using clocks that are also here on Earth. With respect to our own frame of reference, which is a perfectly valid and useful frame of reference, we experience the event in question as having occurred about 18,000 of our years ago. The idea that we need to know what a clock read at the supernova in order to figure out when the event happened as we see it, and that we have to burden our discourse with long-winded relativistic blither to do so, seems neurotically over-complicated to me. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Euro-centric angle of article
The Chinese version of this article states that this supernova has also been recorded in the Chinese Imperial Archives, the article however suggests that the sighting (and other sightings) are a completely European phenomenon. Article should be rewritten to include Chinese sighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- This supernova was easily visible to the unaided eye, with a magnitude of -2.5 at its maximum. I agree that records of observations in China would be interesting. How far they were accurate enough to detect any parallax, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)